And they were delighted. In my description of these four journalists, I say that "nothing delights them more than a Republican sex scandal". Today's Weekday Program illustrated that point, one more time.
Today, there was more good news on the economy. And during the last week, we got more reasons to think that we are winning in Iraq. Did the gang choose to discuss either of those big stories? No, and no. Instead, host Steve Scher chose to begin the program with the sad story of Richard Curtis, which you can read about here, if you really want to. Is Curtis important? No. Danny Westneat of the Seattle Times admitted he had never heard of the legislator. (I know way more about politics than Westneat does, and I hadn't heard of Curtis, either.)
So, why is the gang so fascinated by these stories? For D. Parvaz of the Seattle PI, it's mostly a matter of partisanship; she hopes that these stories will hurt the Republicans. Westneat appears to hope that these stories will force a change in the political issues, away from traditional moral issues, to be blunt. Knute Berger of Crosscut seemed to share both views. (Unfortunately, no one asked Berger about the pages of ads for prostitutes in his former publication, the Seattle Weekly. That might have added something interesting to the discussion.)
And Steve Scher? Why is he fascinated by these stories, so fascinated that I sometimes half expect him to . . . well, I try to keep this site suitable for sprogs, so I won't say what I expect him to do on the air as he gets excited over these stories. But anyone above the age of fourteen should be able to figure it out. I don't know why he gets so excited, but one caller gave me an idea for a possible explanation. The caller said, citing a study, that repressed homosexuals are the most likely to have "homophobic" views. (I have no idea whether the study is correct, though I have seen a number of references to it.) Using the same kind of reasoning, is it possible that Scher is a repressed Republican, that he is so excited by these scandals because, whether he knows it or not, he really wants to be a Republican? Possibly. And it is a fact that he would be wise to repress any Republican leanings as long as he works for KUOW, an organization that is not famous for its political diversity.
From there, the gang turned to global warming and to the Seattle mayor's posturing on the subject. As usual in such discussions, the gang's near innumeracy and weakness on scientific questions kept the discussion from being very informative. They were partly saved by one caller who pointed out something they had ignored to that point, that nuclear power could reduce the risks from global warming. Although they didn't quarrel with his argument, they didn't integrate it into the discussion either. And just minutes later, they took a call from a woman who claimed we were running out of uranium. (I assume, from the call, that she had never heard of breeder reactors, or thorium.)
Near the end of the program, Scher gave Parvaz a chance to explain her amazing blog entry, in which she said she could "understand" why someone might want to burn that symbol of oppression, San Francisco's Grace Cathedral. I had been hoping that Scher would give her a chance to explain (and apologize), and expected that she would be able to come up with some explanation for what she wrote, after all the attention her blog entry has gotten. She hasn't, at least not one she wanted to share with the listeners. She seemed a bit surprised (and pleased) by the attention, but she never explained what she had written, never forthrightly said that she did not want Christian churches burned, even if those near by were not hurt.
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
(Today's grade is 0.06. The gang was saved from a 0.0 by the caller who favored nuclear power and by Berger's mention of the Clinton and Hart sex scandals. (Believe it or not, the gang is capable of discussing political sex scandals for an entire program without mentioning those two "gentlemen" and their many sex scandals. And I can't recall if they have ever discussed any of the Kennedy sex scandals.)
I plan to do these posts about once a month, even though the gang meets every Friday. But there was one incident a week or so ago that deserves mention, even though I didn't have time to do a post on that show. The gang was discussing policy toward Iran and Parvaz (whose father is Iranian) made the most remarkable claim. The Iranian regime, she said, had tried hard to get an accommodation with the US. This is such an agreeable idea that, for a moment or two, I hoped that she was right. But I am not as skilled at ignoring the facts as she is, so I had to give up the idea.)
Posted by Jim Miller at November 02, 2007 02:07 PM | Email ThisThanks Jim for the report.
Posted by: swatter on November 2, 2007 02:23 PMas for being fixated on sex scandals, i think that's a relatively new phenomenon owing to the liberal press. i mean, its not like the liberal press documented the starr investigation of clinton in meticulous detail like they do these republican sex scandals. r's just get such a raw deal. it's not fair. i think i'll take my ball home now.
Posted by: dinesh on November 2, 2007 02:28 PMBTW, are you not perpetuating the problem by posting it here? What was your motivation for posting this Jim?
If you can find it in your schedule to post these more than once per month, you will bring joy to thousands!
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on November 2, 2007 03:17 PMMaybe the lesson should be that conservatives should get back to actual 'conservative' principals and stop trying to cram evangelical morality down the throats of Americans.
Posted by: Splinter on November 2, 2007 03:35 PM"Maybe the lesson should be that conservatives should get back to actual 'conservative' principals and stop trying to cram evangelical morality down the throats of Americans."
That is the smartest thing anyone has said on this blog in a long time. The sooner you neo-cons Republicans realize that you have to clean up your own house before you can criticize others, the sooner you'll be getting on the road to recovery as a party. As it stands now, you guys and gals are gonna be on the outs for a decade or two before you can recover from GWB's ineptitude.
Posted by: Politically Incorrect on November 2, 2007 04:09 PMI doubt that myself. I just think the news media are mostly Democrats and give Democrats a pass while dumping on Republicans for the same type of behavior because they hate Republicans and want to destroy them politically.
Posted by: KW64 on November 2, 2007 04:48 PMThe only difference that matters is, the GOP constituents give a damn about integrity in their candidates.
Posted by: Andy on November 2, 2007 05:30 PMI DIDN'T SEE IN ON ANY MAJOR NEWS OUTLET...just a breif one liner during the morning show on KVI.
Posted by: Andy on November 2, 2007 05:32 PMSo, Andy, your point is what?
Posted by: BA on November 2, 2007 05:58 PMOh but wait, that's the Stranger in general, not a newspaper but a personal ad listing service.
Posted by: Jeff B. on November 2, 2007 07:55 PMWhat's the big deal?
The war's over pretty much.
The economy is magnificent.
All that's left is to finish purging sinners from the republican party.
Posted by: WVH on November 2, 2007 08:28 PM
For the record, I think there is a distinction between Curtis and the guy from Idaho and the Everett person. That is the issue of consent. Apparently, the second party in the Everett incident claims she was raped. The other situations appear to be consenual. How each party handles their own is up to them. Even when I disgree with people, I don't wish them harm except the poster who uses my moniker and has the
return of WVh@wvh.com in the e-mail line. You hate filled and hateful little jerk, I hope that your computer explodes. Until you post your bile again and I am forced to disavow your idiotic posts.
The internet is a wonderful thing, but it is also as illustrative as a public bathroom. It demonstrates how many truly disgusting people we live among.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on November 3, 2007 09:24 AMAnother country invaded your country based on lies.
if you were unemployed and meanwhile the foreigners who are occupying your country are making billions?
if you saw your family and friends being blown to hell?
if you didn't have running water and you only had electricity for a few hours a day?
if you had to wait in line for more than six hours to get gas?
if you walked out of your home and the smell of rotten corpses filled the air?
if at night you heard gun shots and bombs going off?
if you had to stop at checkpoints and be searched by foreign occupiers?
if the leader of those occupiers said that they aren't leaving until they're ready to leave?
Posted by: Rainlillie on November 3, 2007 11:13 AMYou forgot to add comments about how noble Palestinian suicide bombers are.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on November 3, 2007 11:25 AMI agree with the sentiment. But how do you keep them out of office?
"Listen here, potential Republican office holder, are you now or have you ever been a perverted dirtbag?"
I wish it was that simple.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on November 3, 2007 01:16 PMI am certain there are numerous people (friends, staff or campaign managers) very close to Craig and Curtis who knew, or at least strongly suspected, the dark secrets they held close. Those who engage in perverted behavior don't do so in a vacuum. A discrete word to the news media would have ended their Republican careers before they began. It's a shame the lure of power outweighed their sense of honor.
Posted by: Saltherring on November 3, 2007 10:09 PMNot that it is any of our business. They sure have a way of making a splash.
There's no way to keep them out of a party that continuously props itself up as anti-gay - serving as an obvious cover for someone in the closet.
The big danger for the GOP is not the sex, it is the bluenosed hypocrisy everybody laughs about. (Although I was hearing many chuckles from GOP friends about the details reported in the Curtis case.)
The only answer is for GOP platforms to get out of people's bedrooms and start focusing on other priorities.
Posted by: redflag on November 4, 2007 09:37 AM
Interesting perspective , comes from the view point of hating the sinner and loving the sin .
The biggest looser in the case of Curtis , as if you care about him and his family .
Look at the lefts plantform from abortion to special rights for people based on how they have sex . Looks to me the left is the one who makes an issue of what happens in the bedroom and making government handle the consequences for it .
Posted by: Mick on November 4, 2007 12:38 PM